India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 36 of 295 · 7,068 total
Tecniqua India Private Limited v.Shree Ji Industries & Anr.
Tecniqua India Private Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the removal of the trademark '/ TENDA SPORTS' (Application No. 4417483) registered in the name of Respondent No. 1. The court accepted notice and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties. Both sides were given specific timelines—six weeks for a reply and three weeks thereafter for a rejoinder—setting the stage for substantive arguments on trademark cancellation.
El Baik Food Systems Co Sa v.M/S. Albaik Foods Trading Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in a dispute between El Baik Food Systems Co Sa and M/S. Albaik Foods Trading Private Limited regarding trademark, color combination, and packaging. The court noted that the defendants were preparing to file their written statement and would seek instructions on the reliefs sought by the plaintiff. Consequently, the matter was scheduled for renotification on August 5, 2025, indicating ongoing litigation.
Rajesh Daseja (Huf) Trading As D Rajkumar v.Simran Gaba & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in a trademark dispute where Rajesh Daseja (Huf) sought the cancellation of Trademark No. 4776864 for the mark 'GSK/' from the Trade Marks Register. The court initiated the formal process, directing the petitioner to take necessary steps and issue notice to all respondents. This marks the commencement of substantive proceedings aimed at removing the disputed trademark.
Sharvan Kumar Mittal Trading As Girish Chemical Industries v.Janhvi Sharma Trading As Janhvi Chemical Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings seeking the cancellation and stay of Trademark No. 3017399, a device mark registered in Class 2. The court allowed the petitioner to proceed by directing notice to all respondents and setting key dates for filing replies and written synopses. Furthermore, the court granted an application to summon the complete registration record pertaining to related trademarks, ensuring transparency in the dispute.
Rakesh Kumar Mittal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Rakesh Kumar Mittal, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore his trademark 'MILTON/'. The core issue was the removal of the mark due to non-renewal. The court held that the removal was illegal because the Registrar failed to comply with the mandatory statutory procedure—specifically, issuing a Form O-3 Notice as required under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural compliance is a prerequisite for administrative action in trademark law.
Skechers South Asia Private Limited v.Delhi Polymer & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs, Skechers South Asia Private Limited, to amend their plaint following the successful impleadment of new defendants. Crucially, the court also granted an interim injunction against these newly added parties (Defendants 20 and 21). This order recognizes a prima facie case of trademark infringement based on goods discovered during local commission proceedings, immediately restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling counterfeit products bearing Skechers' trademarks.
M/S Ambika Industrial Corporation v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an order by the Trade Marks Registry that had allowed a change in the registered address for the 'AMBIKA' trademark. The petitioner firm argued that the change, filed by a former partner (Respondent No. 2), lacked justification and was detrimental to the established proprietor. The court ruled that since the petitioner remains the undisputed registered owner, the registry could not unilaterally alter the address based on an unsupported application, thereby restoring the original details.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Wockhardt Limited And Anr.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation of the trademark registration 'PACTYON' held by Wockhardt Limited. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the suit, arguing that the mark was registered in Mumbai. The court accepted notice and set procedural timelines for filing replies and rejoinders, indicating that the matter will proceed through standard litigation steps.
Ihhr Hospitality Ananda Pvt. Ltd. v.Avirup Sircar
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation in a trademark opposition case. The court dismissed the plaintiff's request, noting that extensive prior communication and action had already taken place between the parties regarding the mark 'ANANDA RESORTS'. Consequently, both parties were directed to participate in pre-litigation mediation before proceeding with the main litigation.
Castrol Limited v.Govind Mohan Sharma
In a matter concerning trademark recognition, Castrol Limited sought to establish its 'CASTROL' and 'ACTIV' marks as well-known trademarks before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff presented detailed arguments supporting this claim. While the court did not issue a final ruling on the merits of the well-known status, it granted an adjournment to the defendant for further submissions, indicating that the matter remains active in litigation.
Harpal Singh Gulati v.Registrar Of Trademarks
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Harpal Singh Gulati challenging the rejection of his trademark application for 'Martban -MAA KE HAATH SA'. The core dispute revolves around the appellant's claim of prior use. Crucially, M/s Martbaan, proprietor of similar marks, was impleaded as a respondent to participate in the proceedings. The Court set out a detailed schedule for filing pleadings and listing the matter before the Joint Registrar.
Mohammed Azam Trading As M/S Noor Ahmed v.Paramjeet Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of the plaintiff, Mohammed Azam Trading As M/S Noor Ahmed. The court granted an immediate interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark 'NURY/' while the main suit proceeds. Furthermore, the court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation, setting a clear path for the litigation's progression.
Parle Products Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Parle Products Pvt Ltd filed an appeal seeking to quash a previous opposition order related to trademark application no. 6109894 in Class 30. The Delhi High Court issued an interim order, allowing both the appellant (Parle) and respondent no. 2 sufficient time—six weeks for synopsis filing and subsequent reply periods—to prepare their arguments before proceeding with the substantive hearing.
Devdarshan Dhoop Industries & Anr v.Adhyatmik Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs' review petition, significantly modifying a previous order to strengthen their intellectual property protections. The court clarified that the injunction against the Defendants must cover not only traditional goods but also digital services like virtual worshipping and darshan under the 'DEVDARSHAN' trademark. Furthermore, the judgment reinforced the specific performance of the prior Settlement Agreement and mandated the removal of all related listings.
M/S Mithaas Sweets And Restaurant Private Limited v.M/S Lakhi Ram Deepak Kumar
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Mithaas Sweets and Restaurant challenging the District Judge's order that allowed the Respondent to file a suit afresh regarding trademark infringement. While initial applications concerning delay condonation were granted, the core dispute over jurisdiction—specifically why a 2016 suit was decided by a Civil Court instead of under the Commercial Courts Act—was deferred. The court has now scheduled further proceedings for August 19, 2025, requiring both parties to file detailed notes of contentions.
Fiacre Telematics Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademark
The petitioner appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents, Kolkata, arguing that the rejection of their patent application lacked reasoning and failed to address the arguments regarding inventive steps. The court found a serious infirmity in the impugned order due to its unreasoned nature and remanded the matter.
Trodat Gmbh v.Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd
Trodat Gmbh appealed a single judge's order that allowed Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd to manufacture and sell a self-inking stamp design without infringing Trodat's registered designs. The core issue revolved around whether the respondent's new design produced a different overall impression on an 'informed user.' The Delhi High Court, while extensively discussing established principles of design infringement, ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's finding that no piracy had occurred.
Orient Electric Ltd v.Polycab India Limited
Orient Electric Ltd filed a suit against Polycab India Limited alleging that its 'Polycab Ceiling Fan Silencio Cruiser' infringes upon Orient Electric's Indian Patent No. 477284, which relates to a twisted compounded plastic blade for ceiling fans. The court passed an order appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect the Defendant's premises and collect evidence regarding the infringing products and sales.
ITC Limited v.The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark
ITC Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol,' which was denied under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the invention on grounds that its use could cause serious prejudice to human health or public order. ITC argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked reasoned basis, and violated principles of natural justice due to the introduction of unsupplied documents. The Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the Controller for a fresh decision after ensuring all parties are heard.
Dhunseri Petrochem And Tea Ltd. v.Mr. Dhanraj Khatri And Anr.
Dhunseri Petrochem And Tea Ltd. filed an application seeking rectification of a copyright registration held by its opponents, alleging that the respondent's artistic work was a deceptive and substantial reproduction of the petitioner's established labels ('Lal Ghora' and 'Kala Ghora'). The petitioner demonstrated long-standing use and exclusive association with their distinctive packaging designs for tea. The court found that the respondent's design was deceptively similar, noting only cosmetic changes while retaining the core features and color scheme. Consequently, the registration of the impugned artistic work was directed to be expunged.
Dura-Line India Pvt Ltd v.Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.
Dura-Line India Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., alleging infringement of its patent and design related to non-metallic pipes embedded with tracer cables for leak detection. The defendant challenged both the infringement and the validity of the patent itself. After extensive proceedings, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dura-Line, upholding the validity of the Suit Patent and decreeing the suit.
Vikas Gupta / Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd. v.Inder Raj Sahni Proprietor M/S Sahni Cosmetics
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark dispute over the common name 'NEHA' used in the personal care sector. The Plaintiffs, Neha Herbals, claimed infringement and passing off against Sahni Cosmetics, which uses the mark for creams. While the court acknowledged the Defendant's prior use of the mark for creams, it ultimately found that the Plaintiffs had established continuous use and valid registrations for their goods (Mehandi). Consequently, the suit seeking damages was dismissed, but the cancellation petitions filed by the Defendant were also rejected.
Tirupati Vancom Private Limited v.James Glendye And Co Limited and Ors
The Calcutta High Court, in its Intellectual Property Rights Division, admitted the plaint filed by Tirupati Vancom Private Limited against James Glendye and Co Limited. The court granted leave under relevant provisions due to the urgency pleaded by the plaintiff.
Enhaz Beverages Private Limited v.Shubh Food Agro Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Enhaz Beverages Private Limited against Shubh Food Agro Industries & Ors. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark 'GROWSY' and a deceptively similar trade dress constituted infringement, passing off, and dilution of the plaintiff's registered trademark 'GROOVY' and its family of marks. This preliminary order protects the plaintiff's brand reputation while the full suit proceeds.